Scientific Civilization [modified]
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Philosophy?
Sure. If the philosophy is that civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates? Okay - opiates and caffeine.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs. Science would have to provide one or the other.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
False dichotomy much?
-
What do you think of a society governed by science and science only? A society so mechanized and organized that it can be viewed as a machine and controlled with variables. Tweaking the variables in the machine would cause a cascade effect effecting every individual. Everyone would be thoroughly cataloged, everything from what they buy, where they drive, where they walk, facial expressions noted using AI that analyzes CCTV footage 24/7. Psychology would certainly be used in the system. The mentality of people would be manipulated with social engineering. The media would be the major outlet of such manipulation. Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license. Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated. Education would be highly regulated, everyone from childhood to collage would be required the necessary conditioning to be a "productive member" of society. Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous. Everyone has to work and continue to work, except the privileged "disabled". Savings would be stealthed away and debt is the only way to stay afloat in the economy. People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say. Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.. There would be nowhere to run or hide, you would have no choice as you are owned by the ruling elite. You must do what you are told to do or suffer the punishments. You would be a cog in a highly organized and controlled machine, unable to think for yourself or do what you want. You would not be a human, but a unit. The science of tyranny is absolute law.
modified on Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:26 PM
Ok. That confirms it. You're a fucking idiot.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
mostly because you're projecting your own feelings of inadequacy when confronted with scientific information
This is an example of psychological warfare. I understand things quite well, though I may not be able to word my thoughts exactly as I think them. Now I have thought about this quite thoroughly. The human mind is like a sophisticated computer. It has input and output. No matter how intelligent you are your mind is as only as good as what is inputted. If the input is controlled then your mind is controlled.
Seriously? Not to belittle what's left of your reasoning after the drugs, but brains are nothing like computers except on a level that is so utterly trivial as to be meaningless. Computers do not self-assemble and self-organize from a single microchip. Computers do not rewire themselves throughout their lifespan. The transistors and hard drives in computers do not die and become permanently inoperable when deprived of electricity. Get the picture? Your insight contributes nothing to an understanding of neurology or human behavior. Which, as I alluded to, if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
- F
-
False dichotomy much?
Sorry, I don't understand what that means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates? Okay - opiates and caffeine.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates?
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ok. That confirms it. You're a fucking idiot.
Rob Graham wrote:
That confirms it. You're a f***ing idiot.
Wow, you sure do wait until all the evidence is in, don't you? :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Seriously? Not to belittle what's left of your reasoning after the drugs, but brains are nothing like computers except on a level that is so utterly trivial as to be meaningless. Computers do not self-assemble and self-organize from a single microchip. Computers do not rewire themselves throughout their lifespan. The transistors and hard drives in computers do not die and become permanently inoperable when deprived of electricity. Get the picture? Your insight contributes nothing to an understanding of neurology or human behavior. Which, as I alluded to, if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
- F
No, he is correct. He never said it was like a conventional desk top computer. But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
Fisticuffs wrote:
if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
Do you?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Sorry, I don't understand what that means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
-
No, he is correct. He never said it was like a conventional desk top computer. But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
Fisticuffs wrote:
if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
Do you?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
That's why i used the phrase 'except on a level so utterly trivial as to be meaningless.' My post was only a paragraph, Stan, did you really just stop at the first five words? There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output? Well, excuse me while I shit my pants - what an amazing insight. Nobody has ever thought of that before. It's like a 0.5 second footnote in an intro to introductory neurology course. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you?
Um, yes Stan, I do.
- F
-
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Some 5000 years or so of actual civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
That's why i used the phrase 'except on a level so utterly trivial as to be meaningless.' My post was only a paragraph, Stan, did you really just stop at the first five words? There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output? Well, excuse me while I shit my pants - what an amazing insight. Nobody has ever thought of that before. It's like a 0.5 second footnote in an intro to introductory neurology course. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you?
Um, yes Stan, I do.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output?.
Well, except that its a black box which we are inside of. But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Um, yes Stan, I do.
Such as?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates?
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed. By the way, marijuana was also legal until about the same time. I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Some 5000 years or so of actual civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion. For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output?.
Well, except that its a black box which we are inside of. But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Um, yes Stan, I do.
Such as?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
No, not really. See my first post for details on how the brain is not a computer. You just abstract it like that. But since you're so married to the idea, why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Such as?
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
- F
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That confirms it. You're a f***ing idiot.
Wow, you sure do wait until all the evidence is in, don't you? :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I really doubt if he's done providing evidence...
-
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion. For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's still not particularly good evidence of your very strong assertion.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, its damned strong evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
For example, for thousands of years it was believed that time transcended everything, that one second was one second no matter who you are or what you're doing. Is civilisation dependent on this incorrect belief?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Obviously, the human perception of time has been entirely adequate for the purposes of maintaining civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed. By the way, marijuana was also legal until about the same time. I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed.
:rolleyes: Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history. To suggest that it was is yet another historic absurdity on your part. Now, if you were to argue tha alcohol played such a role, I suppose I would have to consider that point. But there is simply no evidence of large scale general dependency by the population on the drugs you mention. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
I'm not an avid supporter of the current drug laws if that is what you are referring to. I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders, but otherwise the states themselves should provide their own local laws in regard to drugs. So, for example, I don't really care if California legalizes marijuana, as long as its grown there and used there. I think its a stupid idea, but they can do as they please.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
No, not really. See my first post for details on how the brain is not a computer. You just abstract it like that. But since you're so married to the idea, why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Such as?
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
why don't you explain how thinking of the brain as a computer enhances our understanding to a degree that warrants engaging with it on that level instead of with what the brain really works on - neurons, plasticity, etc.
Anything that computes is, by definition, a computer. The mechanical adding machines that used to be so common back in the day were computers. A fly's brain is a computer. I would say that it enhances our understanding by first establishing the fundamental purpose of the thing we are trying to understand.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have degrees in biochemistry and computer science, and I'm about halfway through my MD now.
Congratulations. You have taken the path I turned off of.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed.
:rolleyes: Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history. To suggest that it was is yet another historic absurdity on your part. Now, if you were to argue tha alcohol played such a role, I suppose I would have to consider that point. But there is simply no evidence of large scale general dependency by the population on the drugs you mention. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
I'm not an avid supporter of the current drug laws if that is what you are referring to. I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders, but otherwise the states themselves should provide their own local laws in regard to drugs. So, for example, I don't really care if California legalizes marijuana, as long as its grown there and used there. I think its a stupid idea, but they can do as they please.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Neither opiates or cocaine played a significant role in maintaining American civilization at any time in our history
I never said they did. I said their use was prevalent during the 19th century. You not only cannot dispute this fact, you won't even address it head on. Any claims about drugs supporting civilization come only from you. I think the idea is absurd.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the federal government has a role to play in keeping drugs from entering the country and from moving across state borders
Why should South Carolinian taxes go to pay to keep drugs out of Texas or from entering your state via Pennsylvania? Screw that. If you and your neighbors think that drugs are illegal, hire your own narcs and don't expect me or mine to pay for them. You want sovereignty, at least have the balls to stop asking for foreign aid. It's time you statists stop expecting everyone else to pay for you. Does Jeffersonianism include being a nanny now - or have you just not thought things through?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin